Pratt v. Chapman
This text of 128 A. 3 (Pratt v. Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On exceptions and motion for new trial by defendant. To sustain exceptions they must contain within themselves sufficient to show that the excepting party is aggrieved. Lenfest v. Robbins, 101 Maine, 176. Moreover, exceptions cannot be sustained unless the excepting party clearly and affirmatively shows that the ruling, made the subject of exceptions, prejudicial to him and that ho has been thereby prejudiced. Smith v. Booth Bros., 112 Maine, 304; Googins v. Skillings, 118 Maine, 299; Rent, Admr. v. Portland Candy Co., 122 Maine, 25. These burdens the defendant has not sustained, nor has he sustained the burden of showing that the verdict is so manifestly wrong that it should be disturbed by the motion. Motion and exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
128 A. 3, 124 Me. 443, 1925 Me. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-chapman-me-1925.